Obama was never my hope for change. I knew he was nothing more than a slick talker from the first time I heard him. That's cause he never says anything. Change --- change, repeated like a mantra or a chant, but he never said what the change was going to be. Okay, he made campaign promises like they all do, but it was obvious then, and it's still obvious, that Obama is full of sheeet. He's already broken most of them.

Catherine wrote:

If he's not...then where do we look for real leadership?

We had a chance but it got blown to hell. That chance for actual hope was Ron Paul. He would have had us out of Iraq by now. He would have had our troops home from all over the world. He would have begun work on dismantling the Federal Reserve. He would have decreased spending instead of increasing it and putting our great-great-grandchildren into endless debt. He would have put an end to spying on us without a warrant. He would have a transparent government rather than a masked one with hidden agendas. He would be protecting our civil liberties rather than destroying them like Obama is doing with gun control, or trying to do. He would not be writing terrorist extremist lists for all who don't agree with what he does. He would not have appointed fat cat Banksters and CFR members to his cabinet or reruns from the Bush/Clinton Regime. And he never would have tried to get America to sign outlandish, liberty crushing treaties with the United Nations.

Then what is the ultimate answer? Do we put our heads in the sand and pretend it's not happening? That's one of the reasons we're in the mess we're in today!

Obama seems to have been our last, best hope for "change." If he's not...then where do we look for real leadership? I agree with some of what you're all saying. I've not seen a heck of a lot of change....yet. Although it's still early days in his administration, I agree that he didn't seem to make much change with his cabinet picks.

Who can lead you better than you can lead yourself? Who do you trust more than you trust yourself? Why would we desire someone who we do not even know, other than a few speeches and rigged debates on tv, to be our leader?

I mean, really, think about it. How well do we really know these so called leaders? Once again I ask, why would I want a leader who has morals which are questionable at best, based on what was observed in actions, not in words?

I can remember in the run up to the election that I stated that I would not be electing Obama because there was never a chance that there was going to be an end to the war with him in office. By his own actions I knew this to be true.

People say they want a leader. I find it funny. If they do not have someone to point them in the right direction, will they get lost? Do we really have to depend on another to lead us?

Fine. Then why do we not look to people who walk the walk that they talk? There was the favorite of many members of this site, Dennis Kuchinich. I could have supported him. There was the not so favorite, Ron Paul who was not supported by the members of this site because they did not understand what it was that he was saying. I could have supported him. A combination of the two would have been great in my mind.

Or do we want a real leader who walks the walk? How about Cindy Sheehan. NOW THERE IS A LEADER WHOM I CAN SUPPORT. How about Cynthia McKinney. I really liked her, and still like her. Another fine brave woman, a real leader.

There are others. We can really take our pick.

But no. Who do people end up voting for? They end up having a "choice" between two pre-picked puppets put forward by the MSNM per the real masters orders. Because we believe them, the people who actually could make a real difference do not have the chance of a snowball in hell.

I did not support Obama because I KNEW him. I could see him for what he was, not what he said he was, and you know what, I got lambasted for it. I'm pretty used to it. I seem to be very radical compared to most people. I choose to be sovereign over myself. If I am willing to follow someone, they had best be someone that I look up to and respect, not because of their words which are empty, but due to their actions which IS EVERYTHING.

Yes, any of the above I could support as a leader. They all go (to varying degrees) against the pathocratic death grip that is choking the life out of what little humanity is left.

Unfortunately, I seem to be in the minority. It seems that everyone wants to look outside themselves for leadership. This is all well and good. I really have no problem with a small central government surrounded by state governments, more easily controlled by the people. Hey, someone wants to live in a "red" state....well then let em. Someone wants to live in a "blue" state....well then let em. Separate into your separate states and do everyone a favor and leave each other alone.

Only thing the central government should be doing is protecting the people from corruption. Well, what happens when it is the protectors of the constitution themselves who are the corrupted ones?

Yet still the game goes on.

Yes, we did put our heads in the sand. A majority of the population still has its head in the sand, and you know why. Because they have no concept of the very purpose behind the Constitution. We can not say that we were not warned, yet because these warnings were not taught, no one really understands unless they are willing to actually put in some work. Now, I'm sorry, I just don't buy the argument that people don't have the time. If something is important to you, then guess what, you somehow find the time. People average how many hours of their lives watching tv? The majority would rather be spoon fed information and mindless entertainment then spending any time expanding their worlds.

Once again. It is people willingness to put trust in others, unearned trust at that, in order to unknowingly be molded into mindless automations willing to do as they are told, yet convinced that they are actually making an informed decision.

Don't believe me? Try an experiment. Be willing to join in a conversation with people that you do not know and subtly direct the conversation into the direction of politics, and then just sit back and listen. You will be amazed at just how uninformed people are. It is scary.

Ask yourself something. Why is it that you believed Obama was our last best hope for change? What was it that he did?

What should our priorities be? I mean, for myself, ending the slaughter is paramount. Nothing even comes close. NOTHING. Everything else I consider to be petty and selfish in light of the slaughter and supported slaughter of hundreds of thousands.

Right now, there is no ultimate answer. They hold all the cards and all the control. We are basically relegated to nothing but observers as the grand strategy plays out.

_________________CrimsonEagleThe war to end all wars can only be fought on the front-lines of the mind.

The greatest deception they have perpetrated is that we need them. Our greatest mistake is that we believe them.

Right now, there is no ultimate answer. They hold all the cards and all the control. We are basically relegated to nothing but observers as the grand strategy plays out.

There's an answer. And hopefully when enough people get pissed off it will happen. There are a lot of pissed off and disgusted people in this country. Take all the people who don't even bother to vote anymore cause there's no one to vote for, add them to all the people who are already disgusted with Obama, add them again to all the people who are having a hell of a time making ends meet to the growing number of people who are losing their jobs, and them to the number of people who are already living on the street.

England didn't have the ability to listen to almost all communication. Plus it was 3000 miles away at a time that 3000 miles was a long distance.

Our best bet is for a big block of states to secede and start over again. Of course, this government might release bio-weapons in that case.

I just can't trust a government that condones scooping up bodies and randomly torturing them. Only 1 in 20 of the 'suspects' turned out to be worth anything.

But then....Congress is so busy catering to AIPAC that maybe it wouldn't do much. Obama is so busy catering to Wall Street................................

_________________"If the people allow private banks to control their currency the banks and corporations will deprive the people of all their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered." - Thomas Jefferson

There's an answer. And hopefully when enough people get pissed off it will happen. There are a lot of pissed off and disgusted people in this country. Take all the people who don't even bother to vote anymore cause there's no one to vote for, add them to all the people who are already disgusted with Obama, add them again to all the people who are having a hell of a time making ends meet to the growing number of people who are losing their jobs, and them to the number of people who are already living on the street.

We did it once. We can do it again.

We never did it. Our revolution was NOT one of the poor and pissed off. The Continental Congress was made up of the rich and powerful not the poor and pissed off. The signers of the Declaration of Independence were the leaders of their time not the disenfranchised poor. England pissed them off by taxing them too much and ignoring any input they might have had, as long as the rich and powerful remain rich and powerful, there will not be a revolution. Those who are the most disgusted with Obama, were the most supportive of the War Chimp. The differences in Congress has become a fight between Billionaires and Millionaires with the truly poor too worried about their next meal and rent payment to get involved in anything approaching revolution.

Today powerful includes controlling news outlets. Here in the Southwest just the threat of this so-called Swine Flu has call outs at local schools running somewhere in the 20% area. These are not people who claim to have the flu but rather people keeping their kids home so they won't be exposed. News is adjusted on a daily basis to keep the masses in line, any true revolution is dead before it can begin.

_________________“I'm not a member of any organized party. I'm a Democrat.”-Will Rogers

1) The education, leadership, and funding made available by the likes of Jefferson, the Adams's, Washington, Madison, Franklin, Paine and many others.

2) The foot soldiers...who were largely somewhat poor.

3) Anger....made possible by the education, leadership, and funding from 1).

BTW....sometimes I go back and reread some old posts. I am prone to exaggerating issues to make a point. Is this acceptable on political chat boards?

_________________"If the people allow private banks to control their currency the banks and corporations will deprive the people of all their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered." - Thomas Jefferson

BTW....sometimes I go back and reread some old posts. I am prone to exaggerating issues to make a point. Is this acceptable on political chat boards?

I like to go back and re-read old posts, too, PT. I would never have imagined that you exaggerated issues to prove your point! It's ok at this political chatboard, although I can't speak for others.

They don't prove a point, they can help make a point.

I was a professional salesman for many years. People yawn and fall asleep if you present scientific and technically precise information.

The key to political chatboards, in my brief experience, is that the smaller ones will accept the polite and have minimal Thought Police patrolling them. The huge ones are rife with Thought Police but one tends to be an anonymous face in a vast sea.

I became a malcontent before it was hip...and drew some subsequent ire. If you not a malcontent by now, you have no idea what a heist (albeit somewhat legal) is being performed by the power elite.

Our only hope lies in the malcontents.

_________________"If the people allow private banks to control their currency the banks and corporations will deprive the people of all their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered." - Thomas Jefferson

Right now, there is no ultimate answer. They hold all the cards and all the control. We are basically relegated to nothing but observers as the grand strategy plays out.

There's an answer. And hopefully when enough people get pissed off it will happen. There are a lot of pissed off and ed people in this country. Take all the people who don't even bother to vote anymore cause there's no one to vote for, add them to all the people who are already ed with Obama, add them again to all the people who are having a hell of a time making ends meet to the growing number of people who are losing their jobs, and them to the number of people who are already living on the street.

We did it once. We can do it again.

I do agree, there is an answer and people will come to it eventually, but not right now.

I also agree, there are a lot of pissed off and ed people in this country. But added to that, from what I have found, the majority are also ignorant and uninformed. They still want to hack at the branches. Even worse is that everyone is hacking at different branches, (depending on their belief's).

No, I will not see the answer in my lifetime. I may see a revolution, that is an answer, but not the correct one. The ROOT will let us kill ourselves and destroy our own communitys and even help us along in this task, but in the end they will still be strong and healthy to start up again right where they left off, or most likely be even better off.

I used to think that revolution was the answer. Eventually I came to realize that after the death and destruction we would just be tradeing one set of psycopaths for another.

They are not the ones who have to change, they cant. Because they cant, we must. We however wont.....at least not right now. Perhaps some day in the future, perhaps.

Dave.

_________________CrimsonEagleThe war to end all wars can only be fought on the front-lines of the mind.

The greatest deception they have perpetrated is that we need them. Our greatest mistake is that we believe them.

We never did it. Our revolution was NOT one of the poor and pissed off. The Continental Congress was made up of the rich and powerful not the poor and pissed off. The signers of the Declaration of Independence were the leaders of their time not the disenfranchised poor. England pissed them off by taxing them too much and ignoring any input they might have had, as long as the rich and powerful remain rich and powerful, there will not be a revolution

Perhaps you can name a congress or parliament that isn't made up of the rich and powerful. It's easy to say that the war was fought for the rich and not the poor but there's more to it than that. The poor fought in the Revolution along with the rich and whoever else was fighting. When we won the war some of our own rich started to opress the poor, for sure. But this also happened. The poor began to revolt against the rich. Militias began to form and uprisings sprang up and you know something? In the end they won. One of the rich, though hypocritical in some regards, Thomas Jefferson, approved of these revolts and got the second amendment into our Bill of Rights. He, along with his followers, the Anti-federalists, managed to get the entire Bill of Rights into the Constitution. The Hamiltonians (Federalists) who did much of the oppression, didn't even want to include a Bill of Rights, at all.

A Proud Liberal wrote:

Those who are the most ed with Obama, were the most supportive of the War Chimp.

First, this just isn't true. The ones who are the mosted with Obama also detested the Bushtard. I and hundreds of thousands (and even millions) of others, both libertarian and old-time conservative, liberal, progressive, and socialist hate Bush, hate his war-mongering, his spying on us, his banker bailouts, his disdain for the Constitution.

And you could also say those ed with Bush are now supportive of Obama. What's the difference?

One's a Republican and one's a Democrat. That's the difference. It's all partisan bullshit. THEY ARE EXACTLY THE SAME. THEY'RE BOTH LYING, THIEVING, MURDERERS. The only differences I can see are these: one has brown skin, he's a Democrat, and he's looking like he's actually even worse than the last one.

A Proud Liberal wrote:

The differences in Congress has become a fight between Billionaires and Millionaires with the truly poor too worried about their next meal and rent payment to get involved in anything approaching revolution.

Maybe when we get hungry enough and more of us are out of work and on the street we'll revolt. It takes a lot before people revolt. That's just human Nature.

A Proud Liberal wrote:

News is adjusted on a daily basis to keep the masses in line, any true revolution is dead before it can begin.

I agree with your assessment of the mainstream media. But to say any true revolution is dead before it can begin is just a defeatist attitude. I won't give up. There's too much to fight for.

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude better than the animated contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."

We never did it. Our revolution was NOT one of the poor and pissed off. The Continental Congress was made up of the rich and powerful not the poor and pissed off. The signers of the Declaration of Independence were the leaders of their time not the disenfranchised poor. England pissed them off by taxing them too much and ignoring any input they might have had, as long as the rich and powerful remain rich and powerful, there will not be a revolution

Perhaps you can name a congress or parliament that isn't made up of the rich and powerful. It's easy to say that the war was fought for the rich and not the poor but there's more to it than that. The poor fought in the Revolution along with the rich and whoever else was fighting. When we won the war some of our own rich started to opress the poor, for sure. But this also happened. The poor began to revolt against the rich. Militias began to form and uprisings sprang up and you know something? In the end they won. One of the rich, though hypocritical in some regards, Thomas Jefferson, approved of these revolts and got the second amendment into our Bill of Rights. He, along with his followers, the Anti-federalists, managed to get the entire Bill of Rights into the Constitution. The Hamiltonians (Federalists) who did much of the oppression, didn't even want to include a Bill of Rights, at all.

A Proud Liberal wrote:

Those who are the most ed with Obama, were the most supportive of the War Chimp.

First, this just isn't true. The ones who are the mosted with Obama also detested the Bushtard. I and hundreds of thousands (and even millions) of others, both libertarian and old-time conservative, liberal, progressive, and socialist hate Bush, hate his war-mongering, his spying on us, his banker bailouts, his disdain for the Constitution.

And you could also say those ed with Bush are now supportive of Obama. What's the difference?

One's a Republican and one's a Democrat. That's the difference. It's all partisan bullshit. THEY ARE EXACTLY THE SAME. THEY'RE BOTH LYING, THIEVING, MURDERERS. The only differences I can see are these: one has brown skin, he's a Democrat, and he's looking like he's actually even worse than the last one.

A Proud Liberal wrote:

The differences in Congress has become a fight between Billionaires and Millionaires with the truly poor too worried about their next meal and rent payment to get involved in anything approaching revolution.

Maybe when we get hungry enough and more of us are out of work and on the street we'll revolt. It takes a lot before people revolt. That's just human Nature.

A Proud Liberal wrote:

News is adjusted on a daily basis to keep the masses in line, any true revolution is dead before it can begin.

I agree with your assessment of the mainstream media. But to say any true revolution is dead before it can begin is just a defeatist attitude. I won't give up. There's too much to fight for.

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude better than the animated contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."

--Samuel Adams

Hamilton was more accurately a member of Ultra Federalists. There were super conservative and very war like. Ring a bell?

Hamilton is also often considered to be an agent for the Bank of England. Possibly married into the Rothschild banking dynasty.

Adams and Jefferson were both ed that Washington favored the advice of Hamilton. I believe Jefferson quit in protest?

At any rate, Jefferson was the man in spite of his short comings. Who doesn't have those when they are placed under the microscope?

Kudos for quoting Samuel Adams. Many of the more informed historians will argue that there would have been no revolution without Samuel. However, most mainstream historians largely ignore him. I would argue that is due to the power and control of present day international banking. Samuel became a revolutionary before it was hip....around 1765. The Bank of England sued and closed his fathers competing Bank of Boston. Thus producing a revolutionary without need for rest.

The revolution was as much about the right to print money as it was about taxation.

"Give me control of a nations monetary system and I care not about the political system." Nathan Rothschild................a rough quote with several errors

Congress and the President have been purchased and controlled by the bankers and AIPAC. The CFR receives its direction from the bankers and has largely controlled every administration since Truman. The goal of the bankers and CFR is one world government as ex-members have testified.

And now.....they are aggressively implementing their global ecopolitical assimilation made possible by an engineered crisis and the rise of a global police state.

_________________"If the people allow private banks to control their currency the banks and corporations will deprive the people of all their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered." - Thomas Jefferson

Hamilton was more accurately a member of Ultra Federalists. There were super conservative and very war like. Ring a bell?

Hamilton led the self-named Federalists. The Federalists would have more accurately been called the 'Nationalists' or 'The Authoritarians for Big Government'.

This is my point about the Federalists vs the Anti-federalists. One group was authoritarian. One group was at least more libertarian.

Mostly, though, Hamilton was authoritarian and Jefferson was libertarian.

Now again we have two main parties. (And have had for a good long while.) But both parties are authoritarian.

Purple Tang wrote:

At any rate, Jefferson was the man in spite of his short comings. Who doesn't have those when they are placed under the microscope?

Jefferson was the man. I love Jefferson. I only mentioned the hypocritical bit to be fair and honest.

As far as being "super conservative and very war like". The Democrats are just as war-mongering as the Republicans. Look back in our history in the last 100 years or so. Who started the most wars? Anyway, it's almost completely impossible at this point to tell them apart.

Purple Tang wrote:

Hamilton is also often considered to be an agent for the Bank of England. Possibly married into the Rothschild banking dynasty.

While it is true that the Democrats have gotten us involved in more wars, I really don't think it is fair to include WWII. That war would have sucked in any president. WWI is more open to debate.

Eisenhower technically started the Vietnam exercise by sending "advisors" over there. Kennedy started pulling them out right before the exploding bullet hit his forehead. Johnson deserves 'credit' for Vietnam....after receiving bogus intel. It was more McNamara and the CIA's doing. Nixon ended it but not before heeding Kissingers desire to bomb Cambodia back to the Stone Age.

Carter was really the only peaceful president since Kennedy.

I think Obama will oversee a lot of change and carnage...including the end of the USA as we know it. His handlers are besides themselves with joy at the opportunites that the crisis presents.

_________________"If the people allow private banks to control their currency the banks and corporations will deprive the people of all their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered." - Thomas Jefferson

I think Obama will oversee a lot of change and carnage...including the end of the USA as we know it. His handlers are besides themselves with joy at the opportunites that the crisis presents.

I bet they are besides themselves with joy. And you're not kidding about change and carnage and the end of America.

Big time change. I guess when he said change he really meant it after all.Welcome to Communist (or will it be Muslim?) America. I'm so glad we got rid of one (fascist) dictator and replaced him with a (communist) one.

(The last paragraph in the article)"Mr. Obama's judgment is seriously called into question when he backs an official with troubling ties to Muslim extremists and whose supporters practice ethnic cleansing and genocide. It was Islamic extremists in Kenya who bombed the U.S. Embassy in 1998, killing more than 200 and injuring thousands. None of this has dissuaded Mr. Obama from maintaining disturbing loyalties."

Obama is so tickled to be elected President that he will go along with every whim of the bankers.

GM is using bail-out money to open manufacturing plants .... in China.

Exciting times ahead....the shit will hit the fan sooner rather than later.

_________________"If the people allow private banks to control their currency the banks and corporations will deprive the people of all their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered." - Thomas Jefferson